Hi Simon,
IIRC, this patch is waiting for a new version to take care of the static
const as
agreed below:
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Selva wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:33 AM, Simon Rozman wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > But then making the variable static just to keep a valid
Hi,
(haven't read the rest of the thread yet, but this one caught my eye)
On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 11:12:25AM -0500, Selva wrote:
> Now try to convince Gert that this belongs to 2.4 :)
Well... where would the incentive be to upgrade to 2.5, if we put all
the nice stuff into 2.4...?
Jokes aside,
Hi Simon,
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:33 AM, Simon Rozman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > But then making the variable static just to keep a valid pointer beyond
> the
> > current block local looks like a kludge. For me seeing static applied to
> a
> > variable scoped to a block is just confusing and unusual st
Hi,
> But then making the variable static just to keep a valid pointer beyond the
> current block local looks like a kludge. For me seeing static applied to a
> variable scoped to a block is just confusing and unusual style. Think of
> this: if
> you remove that static the code may still build an
Hi
>
> > > +static const SERVICE_TABLE_ENTRY
> > > + dispatchTable_automatic[] = {
> > > +{ TEXT(""), ServiceStartAutomaticOwn },
> > > +{ NULL, NULL }
> > > +};
> >
> > Agreed this array has to live beyond the for loop, but
Hi,
> > static SERVICE_STATUS_HANDLE service; -static SERVICE_STATUS status;
> > +static SERVICE_STATUS status = { SERVICE_WIN32_SHARE_PROCESS };
>
> While this is correct, making use of C99's designated init like
>
> {.dwServiceType = SERVICE_WIN32_SHARE_PROCESS} would be better
> and cl
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Simon Rozman wrote:
>
> While openvpn.exe can run multiple concurrent processes, openvpnserv.exe
> is usually only one single globally unique running process.
>
> This patch extends openvpnserv.exe to support multiple service instances
> in parallel allowing si
